Minifrac Tests

The MiniFrac Workflow section illustrates how to use F.A.S.T. WellTest to analyze data collected
from minifrac tests.
The Minifrac Observations From Real Data section provides insight on what to expect from
minifrac tests and highlights the importance of key minifrac test design parameters.
Introduction
Well testing has been used for decades to determine essential formation properties and to assess
wellbore condition. There are many different types of tests that can be utilized to collect this
information depending on when the test is conducted, the well location, the well type, and the
formation type. For the most part, conventional tests (flow/buildup or injection/falloff) have
satisfied the majority of our needs. However, under certain conditions, traditional test methods
are not feasible for various reasons. This is especially true for very low permeability formations
that require massive stimulation to obtain economic production. For these formations, it is
extremely important to establish the formation pressure and permeability prior to the main
stimulation. One test that has proved to be convenient for this purpose is commonly referred to as
a Minifrac test.
A minifrac test is an injection-falloff diagnostic test performed without proppant before a main
fracture stimulation treatment. The intent is to break down the formation to create a short
fracture during the injection period, and then to observe closure of the fracture system during the
ensuing falloff period. Historically, these tests were performed immediately prior to the main
fracture treatment to obtain design parameters (i.e.: fracture closure pressure, fracture gradient,
fluid leakoff coefficient, fluid efficiency, formation permeability and reservoir pressure). However,
since personnel and frac equipment were all waiting on location to perform the main treatment,
the falloff period was usually stopped shortly after observing closure, before reliable estimates of
formation pressure and permeability could be obtained. Since these two parameters are critical to
the fracture design and for production/reservoir engineering, it seemed prudent to extend the
falloff period to obtain better estimates, especially since there is little hope of gathering this
information after the main stimulation. Many operators have accomplished this by simply
scheduling the minifrac test well ahead of the main fracture treatment. However, predicting the
falloff time required to obtain meaningful estimates of formation pressure and permeability is
difficult, as it depends on having prior knowledge of the permeability, in addition to knowing the
geomechanical properties of the formation. In many cases, the progress of a minifrac test can be
assessed with pressure data measured at the wellhead, eliminating the need for guessing when
sufficient data has been obtained.
The created fracture can cut through near-wellbore damage, and provide better communication
between the wellbore and true formation, as illustrated in below. For this reason, a minifrac test is
capable of providing better results than a closed chamber test performed on a formation where
fluid inflow is severely restricted by formation damage.

Figure: Idealized View of Induced Fracture

Typical pressure behavior of Minifrac Tests:

Figure: Total Test Overview Plot

Figure: Typical flow regimes

Types of fracture diagnostic tests:

It is important to acknowledge two operational methods of conducting fracture diagnostic tests.
1. Engineers responsible for designing and completing the main hydraulic fracture treatment
prefer to pump the planned fracturing fluid at a high rate/step rate in order to obtain more
representative estimates of ISIP, fracture gradient, net fracture pressure, fluid efficiency and fluid
loss coefficients. This information is used to help optimize pad volume, select the best fluid-loss
additives for the main treatment and design the pumping schedule which would create the
optimum fracture from a productivity point of view (SPE 140136). Step rate tests can give
additional information about matrix leakoff (at low rates) and frac extension (after breakdown at
higher rates) (SPE 78173). The higher rates give a bigger mini-frac and more representative and
distinct leakoff characteristics. Unfortunately, a bigger mini-frac mean it will take longer to close.
In general, these tests are designed to see closure. In tight/shale formations, such as Eagle Ford
and Bakkan, we are not likely to collect enough after-closure data to get good estimates of
permeability or initial pressure based on this type of test. In unusual circumstances where we can
monitor falloff data for a few weeks we can see reservoir dominated flow (linear/radial flow) for
these tests.
2. Reservoir engineers prefer to inject a less viscous fluid and minimize injected volume in order to
obtain enough after-closure data to estimate reservoir permeability and initial pressure. Initial
pressure is a key parameter for production data analysis and reserves work for the rest of the life
of the well and is very difficult to obtain following the main fracture treatment. Leakoff types and
coefficients may still be obtained. However, the relatively small size of the mini-frac generated
3

when minimizing injection volume can lead to some uncertainty. For low microdarcy to hundred of
nanodarcy permeabilities we see successful tests conducted with rates between 1-2 bbl/min for 5
to 10 minutes, with a total injection volume less than about 25bbl.
Theoretically, the key parameters can be obtained from either method but in practice the test
objectives must be weighed and the test designed to meet those objectives. Alternatively, two
tests can be conducted back to back. First a test with the injected volume minimized to obtain
virgin-rock breakdown pressure, permeability, initial pressure and initial estimates of leakoff
characteristics. Then another test with the fluid and rate more representative of the main
treatment.

Key Results from minifrac tests:

Following a brief injection period, the wellhead valve is closed, and the pressure falloff is recorded
(at the wellhead or downhole) for a few hours to several days, depending on how permeable the
formation is. The pressure falloff data are then analyzed using specialized techniques to yield the
following information:
Fracture closure pressure (pc)
Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP)
ISIP = Final Flow Pressure - Final Flow Friction
Final Flow Friction is the friction component of the bottomhole calculation.
Fracture gradient
Fracture Gradient = ISIP / Formation Depth
Net Fracture Pressure (pnet)
Net fracture pressure is the additional pressure within the frac above the pressure
required to keep the fracture open. It is an indication of the energy available to
propagate the fracture.
pnet = ISIP - Closure Pressure
Fluid efficiency
Fluid efficiency is the ratio of the stored volume within the fracture to the total fluid
injected. A high fluid efficiency means low leakoff and indicates the energy used to
inject the fluid was efficiently utilized in creating and growing the fracture.
Unfortunately, low leakoff is also an indication of low permeability. For minifrac
after-closure analysis, high fluid efficiency is coupled with long closure durations and
even longer identifiable flow regime trends.

Gc is the G-function time at fracture closure

Formation leakoff characteristics and fluid loss coefficients.
Formation permeability (k)
Reservoir pressure (pi)

Minifrac Analysis Techniques:

There has been much research conducted by numerous experts to establish or advance
techniques for analyzing data obtained from minifrac tests. Due to the nature of a minifrac test,
the analysis is conducted in two parts; Pre-Closure Analysis (PCA) and After-Closure Analysis (ACA).
Similar to traditional Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA), specialized time and derivative functions
are utilized to perform PCA and ACA. Variations of these analysis techniques are used in
commercial fracture simulation software, which is not convenient for everyday use. Recently, the
most common minifrac analysis techniques used in the industry today have been implemented in
F.A.S.T. WellTest. When combined with the efficient data management, dynamic wizards and
superb graphical user interface within F.A.S.T. WellTest, users now have the ability to easily
analyze minifrac test data. An additional benefit gained with F.A.S.T. WellTest is the ability to
advance after-closure analysis beyond diagnostics and straight line analysis to include modeling
capability. This provides the advantage of verifying and improving on results obtained from
diagnostic analyses, similar to the analysis workflow used for many years in traditional PTA.